 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Linux *is* Unix
>>
>> No, it isn't. Linux is at best a derivative of Minix. It's UNIX-like,
>> perhaps, but it's not Unix.
>
> Care to explain that one?
Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
*stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
"This name was chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from
Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code."
Well, I suppose you *could* define "a Unix operating system" as
"proprietary operating system containing code from the original OS
named 'Unix'". However, that's not what the vast majority of people
*mean* when they use the term "unix". Being free or proprietary has
nothing to do with it, and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
"has code from the original Unix".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
Oh snap!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> "has code from the original Unix".
Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
>> "has code from the original Unix".
>
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
There's some interesting info about GNU's POSIX compliance.
By default, a few GNU tools deviate from POSIX, leaving a way to enable
POSIX compliance. There was an environment variable called POSIX_ME_HARDER
to make several GNU things follow the POSIX specification more closely. It
was then renamed to POSIXLY_CORRECT.
"POSIXLY_CORRECT exists so we have an excuse to say that we still support
the spec, if you define the environment variable. POSIX_ME_HARDER was the
original way. Then a slightly prudish board member convinced me to change it
to POSIXLY_CORRECT which I now think was a mistake. I should have left it as
POSIX_ME_HARDER."
-- Richard Stallman
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> > "has code from the original Unix".
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
Well, given that POSIX is defined as a family of standards which define
the API and command-line utilities for software compatible with Unix, I'd
say it's more or less the whole point (ie. that a POSIX-compliant OS could
be considered a Unix variant).
(After all, the acronym itself contains the word "unix".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
>
> Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
That was my next question, yes. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> >
> > Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
> That was my next question, yes. ;-)
Partially POSIX-compliant is not the same as fully POSIX-compliant.
POSIX doesn't define only system calls.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-2-2010 17:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:33:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Doesn't it vary depending on how many hours you work?
>>> sure, that is full time. 38 or 40 hours per week. Are you working
>>> full-time?
>> I am. I was just clarifying the point that there's a dependence there.
>>
>>>> Well, everybody else in this city seems to not have a problem finding
>>>> a job, so...
>>>>
>>> Sorry, what *city*?
>> ...?
>
> He's asking what city you're in.
Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
real city.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
